§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Thomas P. O'Neill, et al., Appellants-Respondents,v.Ann Pfau,, Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Trump-Equitable v. Gliedman

    57 N.Y.2d 588 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 162 times

    Argued November 10, 1982 Decided December 14, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, FRANK J. BLANGIARDO, J. Milton S. Gould and Roy M. Cohn for appellant. Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr. ( Edith I. Spivack and Rochelle M. Corson of counsel), for respondent. WACHTLER, J. The Trump-Equitable Fifth Avenue Company (Trump), which seeks a partial tax exemption in this proceeding, is a joint venture which owns a parcel of real property located at 721-725

  2. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. Town of Southeast

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4765 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that deviation from criteria in bid request "gives rise to speculation that favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud or corruption may have played a role in the [award] decision"

  3. Cove v. Sise

    71 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 50 times

    Argued March 17, 1988 Decided April 21, 1988 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Richard W. Wallach, J. Esther Bernheim and Joseph A. Faraldo for Francis K. Cove, Jr., and others, appellants. Rosemary Carroll for New York State Court Officers Association, appellant. Patricia P. Satterfield, Michael Colodner and John Eisenman for Joseph W. Bellacosa, intervenor-respondent. Raymond G. McGuire and Harlan J. Silverstein for New York State Supreme

  4. In the Matter of v. N.Y. State Racing and Wagering Bd.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9855 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 20 times

    No. 209. Argued November 19, 2008. Decided December 17, 2008. CROSS APPEALS, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered November 29, 2007. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court, Albany County (E. Michael Kavanagh, J.), entered in five consolidated proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, which had dismissed petitions to review three determinations of respondent

  5. In re Astoria Gas Turbine Power v. Tax Commission

    7 N.Y.3d 451 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 17 times
    In Matter of Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y. (7 NY3d 451 [2006]), the Court addressed the issue of how the real property and particularly the equipment of a electric power generating plant should be taxed.

  6. Secretaries v. Court Admin

    75 N.Y.2d 460 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 25 times

    Argued February 13, 1990 Decided March 27, 1990 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Ira Gammerman, J., Kristin Booth Glen, J. Michael Colodner, John Eiseman and Patricia P. Satterfield for Office of Court Administration and another, appellants-respondents in the first above-entitled matter. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Lillian Z. Cohen, O. Peter Sherwood and Lawrence S. Kahn of counsel), for Classification Review Board, appellant-respondent

  7. Matter of Gavigan v. McCoy

    37 N.Y.2d 548 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 37 times

    Argued September 8, 1975 Decided October 21, 1975 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, JOSEPH A. BRUST, J. John I. Coster for appellant. Michael Colodner and Michael R. Juviler for respondent. GABRIELLI, J. The principal issue presented is whether the performance by petitioner, while an Assistant Special Deputy Clerk in the Bronx County Court, of the duties of a law assistant, entitled him to be reclassified to the position and title of Law Assistant

  8. McKillop v. Lippman

    9 Misc. 3d 635 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    25325. August 4, 2005. Kauff McClain McGuire, LLP, New York City ( Raymond G. McGuire of counsel), for petitioner. Michael Colodner, New York City, for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT ROSALYN RICHTER, J. On January 8, 2004, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) implemented a major statewide reclassification of its court security title series, which consists of those court employees responsible for providing security and maintaining order within court facilities. Prior to the reclassification

  9. Bellacosa v. Review Bd.

    72 N.Y.2d 383 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 17 times
    In Matter of Bellacosa v Classification Review Bd. (72 N.Y.2d 383, 391, 392, supra), we noted that the authority to adopt and revise classifications and allocations constitutes a "core administrative power" delegated exclusively to the CAJ and that "under the existing regulatory scheme, only the CAJ, or a designated representative over whom the CAJ retains supervisory authority, may exercise that power."